Perhaps it is time to stop tax exemptions for religious organizations

Will Catholic Bishops Try to Block Health-Care Reform?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091019/us_time/08599193091400

needs to have its tax exemption pulled.

Its not all about Westboro Baptist and Catholics

get over that.

Way way way to many people look at those.

Whatsoever.

It serves no good purpose, and is actually harmful.

No Deductions.

In your opinion? I'm more a fan of progressive taxation myself.

Oh and I think Churches should generally be untaxed.

Bryant

If a business sticks his head in politics and sometimes sway the votes toward their purpose, then they need to pay their share of taxes. Look at all the Mega churches, think of how many less their would be around if they didn't have that "god" tax.

1. I'm not worried about protecting the Mega Churches, I rather imagine they can protect themselves

2. Businesses pay taxes whether or not they get involved in politics.

3. I think your last line would be clearer if you said "they didn't have that "god" exemption" rather than ""god" tax."

As for why i think Churches should generally be untaxed, I think that power to tax gives government more influence over religion than I like. It's easy enough to imagine good ways in which they might use that power, but they might use it in bad ways well.

Bryant

and religious non-profits, in particular churches and religious organizations. There are a couple of different things to consider. First is do we tax the receipts of religious organizations. Secondly, do we continue to allow a tax deduction to individuals who give money to these organizations. Both of these could be taxed or one or the other.

And regarding receipts of religious organizations, the source of the funds could determine their exemption from taxation. Does the money come from individual donations, or is it profit from investments, profits from businesses owned by the church, or dividends from investments by these churches.

I don't support tax deductions for religious donations. Because that makes non-religious donors pay disproportionately higher taxes, as taxes are a zero sum proposition. Anyone getting a break forces someone else to pay more. To me that is government favoring establishment of religion. Which is prohibited by the Constitution.

I wouldn't tax the donations received by a church. But I wouldn't allow them to operate for profit endeavors tax free. Again it's a fairness issue. Secular businesses don't get that advantage. And investments should be taxed as any non-earned income is subject to taxation.

I'm simply against the government favoring religion with tax policy. I think religion should stand on it's own merits.

Their parishioners burden the roads, they lobby to take rights away from people, they support sexism - let them pay for all that with their own dang dime, not mine.

the fire department.

They should pay for those services, just like the poorest of their parishioners do.

I have a real problem with untaxed profit-making enterprises.

Anyone know how that came to be?

separation of church and state, but I don't know the actual origins of the tax law.

Seems to me that some churches crossed the line a long time ago.

government stays out of their affairs, and since they pay no taxes, the churches don't dabble in the affairs of government.

dabbling in gov't.

While some churches and religious institutions are keeping their end of the bargain, others are as blatantly partisan as lobbyists and try to influence policy.

It's a problem and I don't know how we resolve it.

The IRS will investigate and if they are crossing the line they will remove their tax-exempt status.

Catholic Church, for example? What about those priests who threatened to deny Communion to John Kerry....do we turn in a particular diocese or go after the entire Church? It could get very messy.

But I completely agree that the IRS should go after religious organizations that are really nothing but fronts for groups with political agendas.

in order to justify their promotion of their *biblically-based* policies and laws. But I guess that if they don't think that there is any separation, then I guess it's o.k. to tax them? :shrug: Seems like if they are being able to influence the political process without having to worry about the taxation that other organizations and groups do, then they're enjoying an unfair advantage in the "marketplace of ideas", wouldn't you say?

I don't particularly have a problem with churches whom are performing charitable functions not being taxed but if they want to engage in political lobbying/organizing to elect candidates, then they need to have such activities taxed accordingly. I realize, of course, that this could affect some liberal denominations as well, however the political organizing that most liberal denominations do is more geared towards advocacy on larger social justice issues (i.e. civil rights, poverty) and not using the pulpit to campaign for/against certain candidates.

n/t

how fast it would cease to be a "myth" to them if they knew that they might have to "render unto Caesar" some tax monies for the privilege of their lobbying for candidates and propositions? :shrug:

n/t

when they take up positions we don't like.

You'll get no argument from me, but if you think the wingnuts lost it over health care wait until they find out their churches are going to be taxed!!

Okay, here's what our teeny tiny congregation (about three dozen) does: We give over half of our church building to the day center for the homeless family assistance agency. They couldn't afford a building of their own, and renting business space would cost in the neighborhood of $40,000 per year. They pay us a buck a month and cover the utilities.

Half of our parking area has just been developed for a community garden, with 18 plots. One of the plots our congregation manages and gives the produce over to the local neighbors-helping-neighbors agency. This is the first year of the program, and we've given a quarter ton of fresh vegetables to them. We're hoping to do more next year. Another plot is given over to the homeless family agency, and they have had a lot of fun growing food, much of which they themselves will not consume, because they'll be housed again.

In addition, 11 people will receive a soup supper and two people will get a tuna noodle casserole supper today because of two meal assembling projects we do. And tomorrow, and another 11 soup suppers and two more casserole suppers will be made and consumed. And the day after that, and the day after that, for an entire year, when we will do each of the projects again.

Our outreach money goes to organizations such as Christian Peacemaker Teams and Heifer International, which sponsor projects that seek peaceful resolution of conflicts and help poor people feed themselves.

Each and every one of these projects has a political component to it. There is a buck to be made by some greedy fatcats somewhere off of people going hungry or homeless, and we deny them some of that money by our church's activities, which go on every week, every month and every year. We don't just toss a sawbuck in a kettle each December and call it good, it's a constant presence. Without it, more people would remain homeless, and more people would remain hungry. If we didn't have a tax exemption and a property tax exemption, we couldn't provide any of this. In fact, we'd probably disband, sell the church property, and some developer would put up another high-priced condominium (the land waste use of choice in these parts) that nobody really needs, particularly in this market.

The bright line dividing acceptable and unacceptable "political" involvement for non-profits is candidate and party endorsement, in case you didn't know, and it appears you don't. Anything can be made political; virtually everything that happens in our society happens because somebody can make a buck off of it. Interfering with that money-making can be deemed "political" by anyone who makes their money off of it. There is no way to avoid the political aspect of any eleeomosynary activity.

That clear it up at all? Or am I again wasting my time with the mindless religion bashing that is so in vogue in some corners of DU?

Don't you realize all churches are big and huge money makers that never return help to the community. It'll be better for the US for you and your right-wing, Christofascists to be forced to disband than continue your existance.

:sarcasm:

All the churches I've ever attended were small congregations, that did a LOT of community help and donations.

doing, but don't or won't.

:applause: :thumbsup:

And by the way, good for you and your group.

Why not give the same exemption for any other fanciful idea that one wishes to attach to a business?

As far as your church funding programs that benefit the community - is the church really needed as a middle man to funnel the $ to the needy? Would you and your fellow churchgoers not donate to charity if it didn't have a religious component?

The churches remind me of the health insurance companies - taking their cut to do good that they should be doing for their fellow man in any case.

"believing in make believe" won't attract many of them to your side. :Sighs:

If Xians want to vote for the Rs, then fuck 'em.

Ever wonder why Xians vote so heavily for the Rs? Could it be that the Rs have a penchant for make believe that rivals even that of Xianity? Make believe patriotism, make believe economic policies, make believe compassion, make believe reasons for going to war, make believe enemies upon which to blame the ills of the world, and on and on it goes.

I see a correlation: the Xian core belief relies on make believe, the suspension of reality, willing ignorance or a combination thereof. You have to engage in the same mind fuck to believe in what the Rs say they stand for. Belief in religion's mythology is a gateway ignorance into republicanism.

Religious people are pre-disposed to believe such political fantasies, especially as the religious are well-practiced in group-think since early childhood.

I'm not interested in attracting them to "my side." What I am interested in is them using their evolved brains to think for a second and to put their religious fantasies into perspective. That rarely happens though, as religion uses fear, ignorance and guilt to keep the rabble in line: fear they're going to hell; ignorance of all things that counter the Biblical myths; and guilt about what will happen to them if they leave the religion.

The Xian "fig" leaf, as it were.

Some understanding would do you good, maybe then you would stop judging everyone.

The 3% who hold atheist views are not going to get any of us elected to anything.

3% are the people that actually put "atheist". You left out various other forms of nonbelievers who are just as sick of religion being forced on them. That number is actually 15%. Nonreligious are the biggest minority out there. We also virtually all vote for the Democratic party. (Some of the Randroids go libertarian/repub, but there aren't many of those.) So you're tossing away 50 million voters. Good plan. Maybe you should try the Southern Strategy next and give alienating African Americans or Hispanic voters a shot.

I also love your attitude. "There aren't enough to significantly alter elections, so the hell with them.".
Seems like you're projecting a little bit when you talk about hatred consuming judgment.

the post this poster was responding to huh? The poster in post 38 is saying (by your numbers) that the Dem party should throw out the votes of the other 85%, no? If you claim it is dumb to throw the votes of 15%, how stupid is it to disregard the votes of 85%? Or is your view based simply on who you agree with?

Sorry again.

Nice use of "Democrat" instead of "Democratic." Gee, I wonder why that is ...

:think:

side?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This site, for example.

But I must say, you're doing a piss-poor job of housing and feeding people, creating peace, helping people support themselves. Seems to me you need some help, but suit yourself. By the way, those 13 people we used to feed each day? They're at your doorstep now. Better get busy.

I donate to a number of organizations that work to help the needy. My only proviso is that they have no religious component or affiliation whatsoever. There are plenty of agencies like this doing such work.

Why give the money to them, why not just give it to the needy yourself. Why is donating to the Red Cross so evil?

saying or implying any such thing.

Why is donating to the Red Cross so evil?

I grew up with the teaching that charity begins at home. Donating to international orgs isn't my bag, I donate locally to charities and orgs with low overhead, which help people in need in my community and state...just my preference not to donate to gigantic orgs with monstrous budgets and payrolls. But hey, that is the beauty of charity, one can donate money to good causes to which they see fit.

but the funny thing is there aren't any.

If your small congregation wants to help the neighborhood, more power to them. If they want to take up collections to provide more help, great. But please explain why taxpayers should be compelled to help.

This isn’t about small congregations. The laws certainly can be worded to allow breaks for small congregations but they aren’t.

The issue is the mega churches who are seeking power via wealth. They are using their wealth to influence legislation to promote their beliefs which is clearly a violation of the constitution.

And why are taxpayers subsidizing churches that are losing huge lawsuits for horrible crimes against children?

I appreciated your argument until you said: “mindless religion bashing that is so in vogue in some corners of DU?” Was that really necessary?

The original post (which you did not write) talks about "religious organizations" without regard to their size, mission, scope of work or anything else. That looked like standard-issue mindless religion bashing (and if you're unaware of it, I suggest you read with a more critical eye), because it made absolutely no distinctions.

My original post also points out that practically any activity could be considered political, including feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and visiting the sick and imprisoned. Someone somewhere is making a buck off of a certain number of people being hungry, homeless and incarcerated; anything that ameliorates their plight could be argued to interfere with the right of these greedheads to make a buck.

I submit that writing legislation that would restrict any attempt to influence legislation that would promote religious beliefs would be impossible. The line that's been drawn has been between issues and named candidates or parties, and I have yet to see a coherent proposal that could restrict a religious group's activities to exclude issue-oriented work that could be deemed "political" by someone. I don't think it exists. And broad-brush condemnations of the sort in the original post are hardly edifying.

As to the "small congregation" matter, my small congregation is part of a regional district, which is part of a greater denomination with a national and international presence, though we have fewer than a quarter million adherents. Although each congregation is a pretty much autonomous unit, we recognize and affirm our ties to the larger denomination. How big is "small" under those terms? Would our local homeless outreach be okay, but our disaster relief work in the Gulf Coast be not okay? It would be all right to feed the local hungry, but sponsoring a CPT worker in Hebron would be over some line because it was too "big" a concern for our congregation?

Taxpayers subsidize a lot of things. Our congregation's annual budget is about $60,000. The benefit (both tangible and intangible) to the community at large far exceeds the additional $20,000 in tax revenues that could be realized by taxing those donations. The original post looks to me like the small-minded carping that is acutely aware of the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

If they help the community that is wonderful, but they shouldnt expect the rest of us to subsidize the promotion of their beliefs.

You claim: "writing legislation that would restrict any attempt to influence legislation that would promote religious beliefs would be impossible." I disagree, all legislation draws lines that some dont agree with. It might not be perfect, but could be a hell of a lot better than now.

The bottom line is that churches should not get tax breaks, period. Churches should stay out of politics.

Beyond that offering taxfree status really isn't subsidizing anything its just staying out.

And, once again, why should churches get tax free status?

Beyond that as someone else said here the power to tax is the power to destroy. How many churches in this country would be just about killed if you taxed them. Then theres that whole 1st amendment thing...

comes close to what churches have done. Not only are Catholic dioceses filing bankruptcy about once a year we have a local minister or pastor that is caught being sexually inappropriate. It happens with teachers but not near the same level.

"power to tax is the power to destroy". That statement makes no sense. Of course the government can destroy, that doesnt mean they shouldnt tax.

If a group of people want to get together and form a religion, the government should not stand in their way. And the government should not encourage them by giving them special tax status. If the group cant afford to buy property or build a building, then they should take their case to their neighbors, not as all the taxpayers to kick in.

Yes, the troublesome First Amendment. I read it that the founders wanted the government to stay out of religion and visa vera. But giving churches special tax breaks is the government meddling in religion.

There are religions in this country that are way out of control with political power. That is dangerous and I, as a taxpayer, dont want to fund them.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20090826_Bucks_teacher_charged_after_alleged_affair_with_student.html (dang 3 teachers covered up that one and I have heard joked about it)
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/09_21_09_teacher_caught_with_teen_faces_charges# (special education teacher caught abusing a student)
http://www.redorbit.com/news/oddities/1705035/elementary_school_accidentally_shows_porn/index.html?source=r_oddities (showing kindergardeners porn... thats nice)
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/090519_youtube_assault_allegations (Principal pistol whipping a student)
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/07/1m7lopez233959-boy-15-testifies-he-had-sex-godmoth/?metro&zIndex=95160 (more rape)

Is that enough?

And how is government taxing religion not meddling? As long as they give the same things to every religion, who cares?

to matching what happens via churches. The Catholic Church alone accounts for thousands of cases. You gave 5.

And how is the government giving my tax money to churches that I dont agree with, not meddling?

Churches are spending millions of dollars that could go to helping humanity, like I feel Jesus would appreciate, to change legislation promoting hate.

I am curious if you are either a Mormon or Catholic.

Beyond that the government isn't giving tax money to churches, they just aren't taking it away from churches. Huge difference there. And I am protestant though I don't see how its your business, been to probably every sort of Christian church at one point or another in the past 5 years, have also been to a Buddist temple, but thats entirely different (and considering my faith I didn't "pray" there).

Why should the rest of us taxpayers give your church a break from paying their fair share of taxes?

Pay more attention.

while small congregations are not the targets (ostensibly, as I have seen arguments here that their destruction is icing on the cake) they will invariably be the collateral damage, as you will not bankrupt televangelists by making them dodge taxes like any other corporation.

My dad who is evangelical Christian is all for giving up tax exempt status so that churches can promote laws they want implemented such as denying gay rights, making abortion illegal, putting prayer back into public school. That's how my dad feels. I disagree with him on this subject.

A church can skip it in order to promote specific candidates, etc.

I think that many church administrators who actually have to pay the bills would like to keep the tax exempt status and still be able to influence public policy. My father's church has not filed to deny their tax exempt status, but many people in his church support making laws based on bible scripture. I'm sure these same people however would not like it too much if other religious churches tried to dabble in politics. How would Christians feel if Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wicca, or other churches tried to make laws based on their religion? I doubt they would like that very much. I believe in seperation in church and state. I believe in secular government.

Or to put it another way, what sorts of organizations do you think should enjoy tax exemptions?

When Kerry was running for presidents, their were church leaders saying they would not give communion to those who were going to vote for him. To me that definitely crossed line, but others might argue that it was just one persons position, and they could go to another church that didn't have any criteria

a corporation, it should be taxed.

Anyone can incorporate even a one person business, that can be a corporation. What specifically makes a church "look like a corporation"? And if you're willing to strip a church of tax exempt status, what other 503c organizations are you wanting to strip from tax exempt status?

a reply like that. It's what I love about this place.

That's a very good question for which I have no decent answer.

But I'll take a poke at it anyway.

Maybe the break point could be tied to membership, earnings, investment portfolio, property value, or any other physical asset. In other words, whatever makes a church more about property than faith. It seems to me that people gathering together to share a transcendent experience is part of being human. Only when that sharing becomes more about defending the doctrine of the faith and the physical assets that support it (and the people who made it up) does a religion seem to jump the shark.

We have anti trust laws that are supposed to control markets, but some system of cultural moderation is sorely lacking. Huge profits are made off of people's feelings and we don't seem to have any way to keep organizations from dominating our spiritual lives for money.

Maybe we should socialize art. Let's give all the artists a guaranteed income for about twenty years. Of course I have no vested interest in saying something like that. No no, none at all...

The agreement was they would stay out of politics...well they have broken that contract many times over.

So I say no.

But the regulations defining exempt activities have to be tightened and explicit. No church should be allowed to hide behind vague exemptions to promote a political agenda. If their truth is that fundamental, they should risk their exemptions.

They are not real charities. They're interest groups with a toe hold in some "religious" group. They're religious clubs that typically embrace values that would get them fired if they espoused them at their jobs - sexism, classism, homophobia, for example.

They gather tax free money, then spend it glorifying themselves with buildings and organs and art.

Here's an idea: Make all churches pay 5% of their GROSS receipts from all sources as federal taxes. Then they can spend the other 95% on operations, but NOT on political actions. If they want to be active in politics, get a PAC, and do it like the other seedy interests in America.

The Church likes the money. It's all about the MONEY.

and ran away with it. Churches own huge amounts of real estate, businesses, rental properties amusement parks, schools,etc. much of it totally unrelated to any possible practice of "religion". About time this money came back to the people they are stealing it from.

mark

hee hee. Snuck PETA into a religion thread. I'm bad.

Not all churches/religious orgs do bad shit. Judge each on their own merit.

They're a bunch of quacks.

I am a proud member :-p.

I'm flexible on the first and firm on the latter.

Sounds like a great idea to me.

They are governed by IRS rule 501(c)3. This is the rule which governs all non-profit orgs, from churches to the Humane Society to the American Cancer Society. To repeal 501(c)3 would have far-reaching effects beyond churches. Also, it would be hardest on progressive religious orgs like the UCC and UUA than it would conservative groups like the Roman Catholic or Mormon Churches, simply because those churches are much larger. It's effect on the RCC and LDS would be negligible. It would probably shut down the UCC.

but localities have been subsidizing christianity for a long time by not collecting property tax from churches. That's something that needs to be re-thought. I don't believe that there is ANY legit reason why church property should not be taxed at the same rate as private or other commercial property.

and not selectively, like Bush

Long past due.

If you play in politics, you pay for the privilege like the rest of us.

Still, better late than never, I guess.